M/S Md. Salam Khan & Brothers vs State of Manipur

[1] Heard Shri Anjan Sahu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing for

the respondents.

[2] The validity and correctness of the State wise list of work as regards the respondent No.3; Letter of Acceptance dated 03-08-2019 and the Work

Order dated 08-08-2019 are under challenge in this writ petition.

[3] The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Department (RED)/ Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency (MSRRDA) issued a Notice dated

07-03-2019 inviting online bids for construction of 30 works (11 roads and 19 bridges) under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yoyana (PMGSY). Being

eligible, the petitioner applied for it by submitting its bids. As per the bills of quantities (BOQ) summary details for construction of Bridge over Imphal

River at 5.80 km (Chongtham Kona, Ningthibi Khong), the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder. But since the result of the tender process was

not declared, it filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 639 of 2019 praying for declaring the result and also for restraining the respondents from

awarding the work contract to the other bidders who are placed at 2nd and 3rd position in the tender. On 17-08-2019, when the said writ petition was

listed, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents directed the Government Advocate to seek instruction as to when the bids would be finalized

and that the matter be listed on 27-08-2019. On 27-08-2019, when the matter was listed again, the learned Government Advocate produced a

document relating to State Wise list of Work Order in which the Package No.MNO8101 was found at Sl. No. 8 showing the work being given to the

respondent No. 3. The petitioner withdrew the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition and thereafter, it filed a writ petition being WP(C)

No.733 of 2019 with a prayer to quash and set aside the State Wise Work Order list. On 13-09-2019, when the said writ petition was listed for

consideration at the stage of motion, the learned Government Advocate produced copies of the Letter of Acceptance dated 03-08-2019 and the Work

Order dated 08-08-2019, because of which the writ petition was closed with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised and thereafter, the

instant writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that even though the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder, it was

not selected and that without following the due process of law, the respondent No.3 was selected which was nothing but a biasness and favouritism on

the part of the respondents. It is surprisingly and shocking to note that when both the bidders at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 had quoted the same amount including

paise, the bid of the respondent No.3 was approved without disclosing the criteria for it. The outcome of the tender process was made known to the

public only before this Court. The acts of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner who was the lowest bidder, are arbitrary and malafide

amounting to violation of the principle of natural justice and the Directive Principles of State Policy.

[4] In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, it has been stated that the writ petition has become infructuous, since it was filed on 17-09-

2019 after the Letter of Acceptance and the Work Order having been issued in favour of the respondent No.3 as per the decision dated 12-06-2019

taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee. It has also been stated that the Government of Manipur constituted two Committees-one, a Technical Bid

Evaluation Committee consisting of the Chairman and six members vide order dated 04-01-2019 and two, a Financial Bid Evaluation Committee

consisting of the Chairman and three members. The Tender Evaluation Committee held its meeting on 12-06-2019 for finding the lowest evaluated

workable percentage of the work/ package. The Tender Evaluation Committee examined the details of evaluation based on the Manipur Scheduled

Rate (Rural Roads), 2016 without tax and rates of some major items such as bitumen, bitumen emulsions, reinforcement steel, cement, GSB, Bailey

Bridges Parts, Structural Steel, etc. are adopted from the present market rates exclusive of all taxes. Keeping in view the importance of timely

completion of work with good quality, the Tender Evaluation Committee unanimously decided to fix at the schedule rate i.e., 0.00/- for the Loan Span

Bridges. As per the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee, the present work for construction of bridge over Imphal River at 5.80 km

(Chongtham Kona, Ningthibi Khong) under Package No. MNO 8101 was considered at the scheduled rate and the bidder who quoted below the

scheduled rate was liable to be rejected. The petitioner quoted Rs. 62100734.80 which is -1.50% below scheduled rate and two other bidders were

found tie at L2 namely, Y. Thoiba Singh and M/S NDS Construction who quoted Rs. 63046431.26 which is the exact scheduled rate and their bids

were found responsive as per the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee. Since Shri Y. Thoiba Singh withdrew his Earnest Money Deposit

(EMD) surrendering his bidding process, the bid of the respondent No. 3 was found to be the sole substantially responsive bid for the Package No.

MN08101. The averments made in the writ petition were denied and there was no violation of the Fundamental Rights of any bidders/ contractor in

the entire e-Tender process. In view of the various landmark judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would not be proper on the

part of this Court to re-assess the decision of the Technical Expert Body who had considered Technical Bids in terms of the notice inviting tender.

The lowest bidder has no enforceable /indefeasible right to get the contract. Moreover, the petitioner failed to approach the Dispute Redressal Forum

as per the relevant clause of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and hence, only on this count too, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed

[5] It has been submitted by Shri Anjan Sahu, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted its bids in terms of the

Standard Bidding Documents and after the technical and financial bids being opened, it was found to be the lowest bidder namely L1. But the Tender

Evaluation Committee, in its meeting held on 12-06-2019, took a resolution to fix the workable percentage of long span bridges at (0.00%) for Bailey

Bridge at (-2.60%) based on the parameters considered for road works. This norm which did not form part of the Standard Bidding Documents or for

that matter, the NIT, was adopted by the Tender Evaluation Committee. It has further been submitted by him that since the rules of the game cannot

be changed after the game having already started, the adoption of the said norm by the Tender Evaluation Committee was unreasonable and illegal. In

other words, after the petitioner being found to be the lowest bidder, the Tender Evaluation Committee ought not to have changed the norm which was

not there in the NIT. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram

Ganesh Tripathy & ors. Vs. State of UP & ors, (1997) 1 SCC 621; Hemani Malhotra & anr. Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11; Union of

India & anr. Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal & anr., (2010) 2 SCC 422; Sarup Singh & anr. Vs. Union of India & anr., (2011) 11 SCC 198; and

Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & anr. Vs. BVG India Limited & ors., (2018) 5 SCC 462. Combating his argument, it has been submitted by Shri

Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate that there was no question of changing the norm after the tender process being over. The Tender

Evaluation Committee which took a decision on the basis of a norm which is applicable to all the packages, had the right to take such a decision while

evaluating the tender bids. Reliance has been placed by him in the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation,

Ujjain & anr. Vs. BVG India Limited & ors, (2018) 5 SCC 462 which has also been relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner.

[6] It is not in dispute that the Chief Engineer, (RED)/ (MSRRDA) issued the Notice dated 07-03-2019 inviting online bids for construction of 30

works (11 roads and 19 bridges) under (PMGSY). The petitioner applied for it by submitting its bids and as per the bills of quantities (BOQ) summary

details for construction of Bridge over Imphal River at 5.80 km (Chongtham Kona, Ningthibi Khong), the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder

as is evident from the document filed herewith as Annexure- A/4. As the result of the tender process was not declared, the petitioner approached this

Court by way of W P(C) No.639 of 2019 which was withdrawn, when the learned Government Advocate produced a document containing the State

Wise list of Work Order showing the relevant package being given to the respondent No.3. Accordingly, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.733 of 2019

questioning the State Wise Work Order List which was again withdrawn, when the learned Government Advocate produced copies of the Letter of

Acceptance dated 03-08-2019 and the Work Order dated 08-08-2019 with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition. That is how the instant writ petition

came to be filed by the petitioner questioning them.

[7] Before adverting to the rival contentions, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the

parties. In Ram Ganesh Tripathy (supra) wherein the subject matter in issue relates to the effect of the ad-hoc employees being regularized

retrospectively, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in view of Rule 21-A, the State Government could not have treated the respondents and

other ad-hoc employees whose services were regularized on 17-05-1985 as persons regularly appointed from an earlier date. In Hemani Malhotra

(supra), the issue was as to whether the introduction of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed, would amount

to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. After referring to its earlier decision in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,

(2008) 3 SCC 512, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both

for written examination and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before the commencement of selection

process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional

requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that

prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva voce test was illegal.â€​

In Kartick Chandra Mondal (supra), the issue was whether the respondents who were engaged as peon on casual basis without having been recruited

through proper procedure and having not been sponsored by the employment exchange and having worked with the appellant 2 for two years, could be

absorbed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying upon its decision in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Official liquidator Vs.

Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1, held:

“24. In our considered opinion, the ratio of both the aforesaid decisions are clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

present case. In our considered opinion, there is misplaced sympathy shown in the case of the respondents who have worked with the

appellants only for two years i.e. from 1981 to 1983.

Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the

foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further

appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or

a considerable section. This has been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on

this point in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: (SCC p. 102, para 67)

“67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced

by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of

individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for

repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order….â€​

The last decision which is common to both the counsels, is the one rendered in BVG India Ltd. (supra) wherein Ujjain Municipal Corporation issued

notice inviting tender dated 1-5-2015 for the appointment of agency to carry out “Municipal Solid Waste Door-to-Door Collection and

Transportationâ€. It appointed a technical expert in Waste Management Scheme Viz. M/S Eco Save System Pvt. Ltd. for scrutinizing and evaluating

the technical and financial bids. Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. got first rank amongst the three bidders by getting highest score and was

awarded the contract. The unsuccessful bidder (L-2) questioned the award of contract by way of a writ petition which was allowed. A civil appeal by

way special leave was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the following issue arose:

“8. The questions involved in these appeals are:

8.1. (a) Whether under the scope of judicial review, the High Court could ordinarily question the judgment of the expert consultant on the

issue of technical qualifications of a bidder when the consultant takes into consideration various factors including the basis of non-

performance of the bidder?

8.2. (b) Whether a bidder who submits a bid expressly declaring that it is submitting the same independently and without any partners,

consortium or joint venture can rely upon the technical qualifications of any third party for its qualification?

8.3. (c) Whether the High Court is justified in independently evaluating the technical bids and financial bids of the parties, as an appellate

authority, for coming to the conclusion?â€​ held:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions,

“14. The judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness. The purpose of judicial review of administrative

action is to check whether the choice or decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice or decision is sound. If the process

adopted or decision made by the authority is not mala fide and not intended to favour someone; if the process adopted or decision made is

neither so arbitrary nor irrational that under the facts of the case it can be concluded that no responsible authority acting reasonably and

in accordance with relevant law could have reached such a decision; and if the public interest is not affected, there should be no

interference under Article 226.

It is well settled that the award of contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or by the State, is essentially a

commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, the considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial

considerations. These would include, inter alia, the price at which the party is willing to work; whether the goods or services offered are of

the requisite specifications; and whether the person tendering the bid has the ability to deliver the goods or services as per the

specifications. It is also by now well settled that the authorities/ State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to

grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation.

The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have a public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is

found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should

exercise them only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the

larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that

overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere. (See the judgment in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International

Airport Ltd.)

In that very judgment, this Court proceeded to observe that there are inherent limitations in the exercise of the power of judicial review

of contractual powers. This Court observed that the duty to act fairly will vary in extent, depending upon the nature of the cases to which

the said principle is sought to be applied. The State has the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender, provided that it tries to get the

best person or the best quotation.

Thus, only when a decision-making process is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority proceeding reasonably or lawfully

could have arrived at such decisions, power of judicial review can be exercised. However, if it is bona fide and in public interest, the court

will not interfere in the exercise of power of judicial review even if there is a procedural lacuna. The principles of equity and natural justice

do not operate in the field of commercial transactions. Wherever a decision has been taken appropriately in public interest, the court

ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint. When a decision is taken by the authority concerned upon due consideration of the tender

document submitted by all tenderers on their own merits and it is ultimately found that the successful bidder had in fact substantially

complied with the purpose and object for which the essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with.

Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial transactions/contracts. If the decision relating to award of

contract is in public interest, the courts will not, in exercise of the power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or

error in awarding the contract is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest by

ignoring public interest. Attempts by unsuccessful bidders with an artificial grievance and to get the purpose defeated by approaching the

court on some technical and procedural lapses, should be handled by courts with firmness. The exercise of the power of judicial review

should be avoided if there is no irrationality or arbitrariness. In the matter on hand, we do not find any illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality

or unreasonableness on the part of the expert body while in action. So also, we do not find any bias or mala fides either on the part of the

corporation or on the part of the technical expert while taking the decision. Moreover, the decision is taken keeping in mind the public

interest and the work experience of the successful bidder.â€​

[8] From the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BVG India Ltd.(supra), it is seen that the interference by the High

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters relating to award of contract, is limited. In short, the High Court can exercise its power

and jurisdiction interfering with the award of contract, only when the process adopted or decision made by the authority, is irrational, arbitrary,

malafide and not in public interest which may tantamount to violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been specifically

held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the award of contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or by the State, is essentially a

commercial transaction and while arriving at a decision, the considerations which are of paramount importance, are commercial considerations. These

would include, inter-alia, the price at which the party is willing to work; whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications; and

whether the person tendering the bid has the ability to deliver t he goods or services as per the specifications. As regards the facts of that case, it has

been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme that the technical bids of the parties were analysed thoroughly by the technical expert and marks were

awarded as per the specification of the NIT. In other words, on a final analysis based on technical and financial weighted scores, Global Waste

management Cell Pvt. Ltd got first rank amongst the three bidders by getting the highest score.

[9] In the present case, the Notice was issued on 07-03-2019 inviting item rate bids for the construction of thirty works and in terms thereof, the

technical bids were to be opened on 15-04-2019. It is not known as to when the financial bids were opened but the only thing which is clear to this

Court, is that the Tender Evaluation Committee, which appears to be the third Committee, in its meeting held on 12-06-2019 took a decision, on the

basis of which the contract work was awarded to the private respondent. The resolution of the Tender Evaluation Committee reads as under:

“RESOLUTION OF THE TENDER COMMITTEE MEETING ON E- TENDER OF PMGSY PHASE-XI (BATCH-II, 2017-18) 2RT AND

BATCH-I OF 2018-19 (RT(PT) HELD ON 12TH JUNEM 2918 AT 4TH FLOOR, SECURED OFFICE COMPLEX, A.T. LINE, NORTH AOC,

IMPHAL, MANIPUR

List of Officers present:-

Imphal, dated the 12th June, 2019

Shri Th. Nandakishor Singh, Chief Engineer, RED/MSRRDA

Shri Kh. Dheinyachandra Singh, ACE-I, RED/MSRRDA

Shri Kh. Rajen Singh, SE/OSD(T), RED/MSRRDA

Shri M. Janki Singh, SE(Plg.), RED/MSRRDA

Shri Th. Ingoba Singh, SE-I, RED/MSRRDA

Shri Th. Gunindro Singh, Financial Controller

Shri N. Bose, ITNO, RED/MSRRDA

A meeting of the tender committee (TC) comprising of the above

7 (seven) members was held in the office chamber of the Chief Engineer, RED/ MSRRDA to discuss and fix the lowest evaluated workable

percentage of the works/ packages under NIT No. 5/6/2018- MSRRDA/E-Tender/Ph-XI(B-II, 2017-18)/2RT/724 Dated 7th March, 2019 and

NIT No. 5/16/2018-MSRRDA/E-Tender/B-I, 2018- 19/RT(Pt)/722 dated 7th March, 2019.

The committee minutely examined the details of evaluation supported by an analysis based on MSR(RR)2016 without taxes and rates of some

major items such as bitumen, bitumen emulsions, reinforcement Steel, Cement, GSB, Bailey Bridge parts, Structural Steel etc. are adopted

from present market rates exclusive of all taxes. An exhaustive deliberation was also done on the issue. Keeping in view the importance of

timely completion with good quality. The tender committee unanimously decided to adopt (-8.60%) for stage-I+II works, (-9.60%) for stage-

II and upgradation works. The rates of these works are based on MSR (RR) 2016 exclusive of all taxes such as CST, LST, Central excise,

royalty, Labour Cess etc. Further the Tender committee decided to incorporate 12% GST, which is effective from 1st July, 2017, in

compliance to the OM issued by FD (Finance Commission Cell) vide No. 10/1/2009-FC(Pt) dt. 11th Oct., 2017, Clauses D(3).

Similarly the committee also decided to fix the workable percentage of Long span Bridges at (0.00%) for Bailey Bridge at (- 2.60%) based

on the parameters considered for road works.

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks from the chair.

N. Bose Singh, ITN Th. Gunindro Singh, FC Th. Ingoba Singh, SE-I

M. Janki Singh, SE (Plg.)/SSW Kh. Rajen Singh, SE/OSD(T) Kh. Dheinyachandra Singh, ACE-I Th. Nandakishore Singh, CE, REDâ€​

[10] On perusal of the above resolution, it is seen that the technical and financial bids of the petitioner have not been specifically & thoroughly

analysed and evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Committee, although the same have been examined by the said two earlier Committees at the time

of their being opened by them. It may be noted that the NIT was issued by the Chief Engineer, RED for 30 works, for which the bidders are not

common in all the packages and the locations where the works are to be executed, are also not the same and the present writ petition relates to and

has arisen out of only one package. The financial capacity, work capacity, past performance etc. of the bidders are different. The nature of executing

the works in the hills and the valley may not remain the same and therefore, the technical bids and the financial bids are to be analysed and evaluated

individually and separately. As regards the instant case, the commercial considerations as enumerated in the above decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and as required in matters relating to the award of contract, have not been made by the Tender Evaluation Committee in its resolution

in respect of the package nor has it referred to the package at all. The reasons as to why the petitioner’s bids-technical and financial, are not

responsive, have not been assigned in the resolution. It is true that the State Government is not bound by the fact that the petitioner is found to be L1.

In other words, it is not necessary that only L1 shall be awarded the contract of works. But Article 14 of the Constitution of India which is a

fundamental right, mandates that the State Government ought to act fairly and reasonably. Any action taken by the State Government contrary to the

provisions of Article 14 is bad and is unsustainable in law. All that the Tender Evaluation Committee did, was that it decided to fix the workable

percentage of Long span Bridges at (0.00%) for Bailey Bridge at (-2.60%) based on the parameters considered for road works. It adopted a new

norm which is not there in the terms and conditions of the tender and in other words, it does not from part of the Standard Bidding Documents. It may

be noted that this Court is not concerned with the merits of the decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee but is definitely concerned with the

manner in which the decision was taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee which has failed to properly analyse and evaluate the technical and

financial bids considering all relevant factors in terms of the specifications contained in the Standard Bidding Documents. In this regard, the contention

of Shri Anjan Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has some force and merit, when he submitted that the rules of the game cannot be

changed, after the game having started, for which he has relied upon the decision rendered in Hemani Malhotra (supra). In fact, the said principle has

been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of a service matter but it can be applied in the present case as well for the reason that

people participate in the competition, be it a game or tender or any other competition, only after knowing the terms and conditions thereof and any

change in the rules in the midst of the competition will definitely prejudice the interest of some of the participants. If it is done so, the action of the

authority will be rendered arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is what has been done

exactly in the present case. In fact, it is the domain of the State Government or for that matter, the owner to lay down the terms and conditions in

respect of the tender but once the terms and condition have been laid down, they must be strictly followed and shall not be changed after the process

of tender having commenced. After the technical and financial bids of the petitioner having been opened by the two earlier Committees, it was

admittedly found to be the L1 but its bids had been rejected with the result that the petitioner became ineligible without analyzing and evaluating them

which is unfair and unreasonable and that too, by applying a new norm after the result of the tender process being known to them. The decision of the

Tender Evaluation Committee appears to have been taken to dislodge the petitioner from being the successful bidder. This is not the manner in which

the technical and financial bids of the petitioner have to be analysed and evaluated because it is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. It has been vehemently submitted by Shri Niranjan Sanasam, the learned Government Advocate that there is nothing wrong in

adopting a new norm because it is applicable to all the packages which are similarly situated. In view of his submission, the State Government was

granted time on 15-12-2020, 21-12-2020 and again on 11-01-2021 for filing an additional affidavit to show that all packages are similarly situated and in

compliance with this Court’s orders, an additional affidavit was filed relating to four cases only, out which three cases have nothing to do with the

present NIT. Only one case is relevant wherein the bidder who is L2, was awarded contract but the detailed facts as to whether he was awarded the

contract after the L1 having withdrawn his bids or whether any case questioning the award of contract is pending in any Court, have not been placed

on record. The State Government was unable to produce the materials in respect of all 30 works to show that the facts thereof as regards the

technical and financial bids are similar. In any case, the fact remains that the technical and financial bids of the petitioner have not been properly

analysed and evaluated, as seen from the resolution of the Tender Evaluation Committee, as per the specifications contained in the Standard Bidding

Documents which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the resolution or for that matter, the decision taken

by the Tender Evaluation Committee can be said to be unfair and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and

consequently, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed by this Court.

[11] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the State Wise List in respect

of the respect of the respondent No.3, the letter of acceptance dated 03-08-2020 and the work order dated 08-08-2020 are quashed and set aside. The

respondents and in particular, the respondent No.2, are directed to ensure that the technical and financial bids of the petitioner are properly &

thoroughly anaylised and evaluated in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BVG India Ltd. (supra) and the specifications

contained in Standard Bidding Documents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after the result of the fresh analysis

and evaluation of the Tender Evaluation Committee being known, an appropriate action shall be taken by them accordingly. There shall be no order as

to costs.